STATE OF J & K versus WASIMAHMED MALIK@ HAMID AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2015] 9 S.C.R. 1084 · Decided: 01-07-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 1084 
STATE OF J & K 
v. 
WASIMAHMED MALIK@ HAMID AND ANOTHER 
(Criminal Appeal No. 17 43 of 2009) 
JULY01,2015 
[A. K. SIKRI AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.] 
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987: 
c s. 15 - Requirement under - , Bomb blasts - Explosion 
resulted in death of 8 persons and serious injuries to 18 
persons - Charge sheet ulss.3, 4 of TADA Act; s. 120-B rlw 
ss. 302, 307 and 34 IPC; ss.4 and 5 of Explosives Substance 
Act - Confession made by respondent-accused u/s. 15 of 
D TADA Act wherein he confessed about his involvement as 
also that of other accused - Confession recorded by PW-1, 
the Superintendent of Police -
Trial court rejected the 
confessional statement on the ground that it was recorded in 
Hindi i.e. not in the language of respondents and acquitted 
E both the respondents - On appeal, held: There was nothing 
on record that confessing accused did not understand the 
line of questioning or that he was not made to understand 
the contents of the confession after the recording was 
complete - In the confessional statement confessing accused 
F 
clearly admitted his guilt and described the role played by 
him - His acquittal is, therefore, set aside -Ass regards the 
other accused, apart from confessional statement of 
confessing accused, nothing was placed on record to send 
corroboration as regards his role in the conspiracy and 
G execution thereof - Therefore, his acquittal is affirmed -
Appeal - State's appeal against acquittal - Ranbir Penal 
Code - s. 120-B r!w ss. 302, 307 and 34 - Explosives 
Substance Act, 1908 - ss. 4 and 5 -Terrorist and Disruptive 
H Activities (Prevention) Rules - r.15. 
1084 
STATE OF J & K v. WASIM AHMED MALIK@ HAMID 
·1085 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
A 
HELD: 1. A confession recorded under Section 
15(1) of the TADA Act in accordance with statutory 
requirements and in keeping with the guidelines is 
admissible against the maker, his co-accused, abettor B 
or conspirator in a trial for an offence under the Act, 
subject to the condition stipulated in the proviso to 
Section 15(1 ). Such confession is taken as substantive 
piece of evidence and can form the foundation or basis 
for conviction of the maker, co-accused, abettor or C 
conspirator. However, insofar as use of confession of 
an accused against a co-accu'sed is concerned, rule of 
prudence would require the Court not to rely thereon 
unless corroborated generally by other evidence on 
record. [Para 13) [1100-H; 1101-A-C] 
D 
2. Rule 15(1) of TADA Rules stipulates that the 
confession "shall invariably be recorded in the language 
in which such confession is made and if that is not 
practicable, in the language used by such police officer E 
for official purposes or in the language of the Designated 
Court ...... ". The expression "invariably" itself suggests 
that the requirement under the Rule is discretionary and 
not mandatory. The record in the present matter is very 
clear that the confessing accused 'GN' was produced F 
before PW1 was given statutory warning and time to 
reflect. t;:verything was explained to him and only 
thereafter his thumb impression was taken. On the next 
occasion, when the confessing accused was again 
produced before the witness, soon after the recording G 
of the confession it was again explained to him, read over 
and only thereafter the thumb impression was taken. At 
no stage during the recording on these two occasions, 
nor at the stage when the witness was in the box, there H 
1086 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A was anything on record, or even a suggestion that the 
confessing accused did not understand or was not made 
to understand the contents of the confession. The 
contents of the confession also disclosed that many of 
the assertions were personal to the confessing accused 
B which could only be gathered after due conversation with 
the Recording Officer. The language used as a means of 
communication between the confessing accused and 
the recording officer being Hindi or Hindustani, such 
recording of confession in Hindi language is completely 
C in conformity with the requirement of the Rule. The 
conclusion drawn by the trial court that 'GN' being 
Pakistani national, his language must be Urdu and 
therefore the recording of the confession in a language 
0 
other than Urdu, must be held to be not in conformity, is 
wrong. The assessment made by the trial court in this 
behalf was completely in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.